War in Ukraine
If Members keep their contributions to under 10 minutes, we can get everybody in. I call the Father of the House.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Digital ID Scheme
In October, the Prime Minister called a Downing Street press conference rather than come to this House so that he could tell the nation that digital ID will not be mandatory; it is just that people will not be able to get a job without one. What else will they not be able to do without this apparently voluntary digital ID? If people will not be allowed to get a job without digital ID, can the Minister confirm that they will also be unable to receive any benefits without it?
- Hansard source
Digital ID Scheme
The Minister’s answer makes it clear that this announcement was not a policy—it was a late party conference stunt. The Government obviously have not thought it through; it is clear that the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to push back against officials who have taken this awful idea off the shelf once again. The truth is that this is a £1.8 billion solution in search of a problem. The Minister talks about illegal migration, but there is already a legal responsibility to carry out these checks, and the Home Office offers a reliable service. Can he tell us how many people who have passed the Home Office right-to-work check are later found to not have the right to work?
- Hansard source
Local Elections
Last Friday, along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), I attended a meeting with the leader and the chief executive of North East Lincolnshire council. The chief executive produced a very thick report on why they do not want any further reorganisation in the council area. Up and down the country, councils are spending millions of pounds on producing reports about why they do or do not want to be a mayoral authority, and why they do or do not want reorganisation. Surely the Minister agrees that those millions would be better spent providing better services for their local communities.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), sends his apologies for his absence. In addition to the debates that the Leader of the House mentioned, there will be Westminster Hall debates next Tuesday on consumer-led flexibility for a just transition and next Thursday afternoon on the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade. The second debate on Thursday afternoon is particularly important, because it was initiated by me; it is on the future of the oil refining sector in the UK. The following week, beginning 15 December, there will be a debate on Tuesday on planning policy for quarries and debates on Thursday on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen and on community audiology. Those debates show what a vast range of interests there are across the House. Turning to my own question, last Saturday I visited Humberside airport with the shadow Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), where management outlined the challenges faced not just by them but by regional airports up and down the country. They are facing increased national insurance costs, and in the case of Humberside, they face the potential loss of business from Eastern Airways, which is in administration. If work in the North sea—on the rigs and so on—declines, they will face the loss of the helicopter transfers that they rely on. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the role of regional airports?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
This House is at its strongest when we work across parties and in the interests of others, be they here in the United Kingdom or overseas. Does the Leader of the House share my concern—one shared across the House—about the democratic backsliding in Georgia? This country wants a close relationship with the Government in Tbilisi, and to re-engage on the Wardrop strategic dialogue, but we cannot do so while peaceful protests are being put down by water cannon infused with chemical weapons such as camite. If that is true, as I believe it to be, it could constitute a breach of international law. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to give a statement on Georgia, and will he put on record his concerns about democratic backsliding there?
- Hansard source
Camden Nursery Sexual Abuse Case
The thoughts of the whole House are with the victims and their families, but will the Secretary of State join me in praising the Metropolitan police team that brought this case to charge—in particular, Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford and his team—and the Crown Prosecution Service? It must have been harrowing for them to investigate the case and bring it to charge. More generally, an estimated half a million children are sexually abused in this country every year. According to the National Crime Agency, 840,000 individuals currently pose a sexual risk to children. Shockingly, there are 400,000 searches a month in this country for child sexual abuse images. This country, while still safer than many, clearly has a problem, and it often starts online. What more can the Government do to ensure that the owners of tech companies, not just the managers, are held to account when they are not taking action against the downloading and viewing of such images? The Secretary of State mentions the child protection authority that might be coming forward. May I encourage her not to move away from the great work that the National Crime Agency is doing? It has done a lot more in this area over recent years and has had a lot of success. It has the resources, the manpower and the technology. I would not want its excellent work to be overshadowed by any new authority. Given that local police forces do not have the resources and are overstretched already, what more can be done at a national level to co-ordinate across police forces in England and Wales, including West Mercia in my area, and with the National Crime Agency so that we can see a reduction in the viewing of these images?
- Hansard source
Dawn Sturgess Inquiry
The number of Russian spies operating in the UK is the highest it has been since the cold war—not my words but those of the head of Counter Terrorism Policing. I welcome the sanctions today on the GRU, but the Security Minister will know that the United Kingdom is probably regarded as Russia’s No. 1 enemy—not the United States but the United Kingdom. He will also know that there are other agencies that are operating internationally and have an international footprint, such as the FSB and SVR. While noting and recognising the importance of, shall we say, diplomatic reciprocity, what more can be done, to quote him, to have a “hard operating environment” for both those agencies? Are other Russian political dissidents safe here in the United Kingdom? Finally, on the proliferation of chemical weapons, we know that a chemical agent and a nuclear agent were used in some of the cases outlined today, so given the breakdown in many countries and the security around chemical weapons in those countries—whether in Africa or other parts of the world—how confident is the Minister that the security services are aware of where those chemical weapons might be and where they might be tempted to be deployed?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Last week, the National Security Adviser was due to appear before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Did he? If not, why not?
- Hansard source
Camden Nursery Sexual Abuse Case
This is an utterly horrific case. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and I thank her officials and advisers, who took the time to brief me on it. Any parent who has ever sent their child to nursery has had a physical reaction to this news. It is just so unspeakably awful, and the betrayal of trust that has taken place is abhorrent. I know that the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this place will be with the families and children affected, and all of our collective efforts must now focus on how we do all we can to prevent this from ever happening again. With that goal in mind, I have a number of questions about the case that I want to put to the Secretary of State, with the full understanding that much of what I ask might be covered by the serious case review. I am seeking her assurances that these issues will be looked at in the future, rather than expecting full answers now. The first question is about the time it took for the images and videos on the devices in question to be looked at by the police. My understanding is that while the perpetrator was first arrested and the devices seized in June 2024, those devices were not examined, and the abusive content was not found by the police, until over a year later. This is obviously an unacceptably long delay, given that the case involved nursery children and a man who, in 2024, was barred from working with children. There clearly needs to be an expedited process for devices in cases involving children, particularly those who cannot speak and advocate for themselves. I would be grateful if the Education Secretary would confirm that she will raise this matter with the Home Secretary. Secondly, I understand that closed circuit television was in use at the nursery, but the footage was wiped during the time it took for these serious abuse offences to come to light, so we do not have access to it. This is terrible, because with that CCTV, it might have been possible to identify affected children more easily, and to spare hundreds of parents the unimaginable terror that their children might have been affected. Obviously, this links to my first point about the delays in accessing the devices, but given that in other nursery abuse cases it has also taken time for offences to come to light, looking at the retention guidance for CCTV in nurseries seems a sensible step. It would be helpful to understand whether the Education Secretary is considering such a step. Thirdly, this investigation was triggered by a member of staff at the nursery raising concerns. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether those concerns were investigated immediately by the nursery, at what stage Ofsted was notified, and what steps Ofsted took? Is the Secretary of State content that a rigorous and timely process was followed by Ofsted? It will seem unbelievable to most people that this abuse was able to go on under the noses of other staff and in the daytime, without anyone else being aware. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether other concerns were raised about Mr Chan previously, whether by other nursery staff or by parents, and what checks have taken place on safeguarding procedures at this nursery chain subsequent to this incident? Lastly, according to reports, the perpetrator in question had 26,000 indecent images of children and 16 nursery devices at his home. Was it standard practice for these devices to be removed from the site? Why did nobody notice, and why was he allowed to have so many devices? Is the Education Secretary considering revised guidance about the use of devices in early years settings? I stand with the Secretary of State, officials and the police as they do all they can to seek justice for victims. We in this House will do all we can to ensure that this never happens again.
- Hansard source
Dawn Sturgess Inquiry
I thank the Security Minister for early sight of his statement, and I thank him most warmly for the way in which he has presented the Government’s response this afternoon. As someone who spent a previous life in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, he has served the people of my constituency very well. I am also very pleased with the remarks of the shadow Home Secretary. Today’s report was written as a consequence of the need to bring clarity and to understand unequivocally who was responsible for what happened in 2018, but it is important to remember the huge impact it had on Salisbury, and the tragedy that befell Dawn Sturgess, Charlie Rowley, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, and Yulia and Sergei Skripal. The report is very clear about where culpability lies: it lies with President Putin. Russia was responsible, and Putin as an individual was responsible. He personally ordered what happened in Salisbury, and we should never forget it. Putin is a ruthless dictator, not someone with whom deals can be done. Contrary to one of the candidates in the general election last year in Salisbury who said that he admired him as a political operator, I do not. I never will. I welcome what the Minister said on additional sanctions, and I encourage him and his successors always to pursue energetically, and with continued vigilance, further such measures as required. I welcome what he said about more sophisticated threats emerging on cyber, and I urge him to extend that to look at what happens with our cloud infrastructure. I have just one question. Paragraph 6.25 of the report refers to the issue of regular written assessments, which were lacking in terms of the ongoing care of Sergei Skripal. I think that is the only element that needs serious review for individuals like him in future, but I thank the Minister again for the way he has spoken today, which will give huge comfort to my constituents in Salisbury and to the families of those so tragically affected.
- Hansard source
Seafarers’ Welfare
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important debate, because we are indeed a maritime nation. Sir Christopher, “I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied”— John Masefield’s poem “Sea-Fever” brilliantly captures the magnetic draw of the ocean which, as an island nation, we feel acutely. Yet to be a sailor is not for everyone. My father was a sailor all his working life—a marine engineer who qualified on steam power and ended up on jet engines. His career spanned deep-sea tankers and roll-on, roll-off ferries, and he visited much of the world—or at least sailed past it. However, the salt water in his veins was not passed down to me, for I get seasick in a bath. That does not mean that I cannot appreciate what it is to be a sailor, and I want to express how important maritime traffic is to this country. My Dumfries and Galloway constituency has the ferry port of Cairnryan, which is a vital link with our friends in Northern Ireland. Our stunning coastline is studded with harbours—Kirkcudbright, Garlieston, the Isle of Whithorn, Port William and Portpatrick—which are used for leisure craft while the working boats win a valuable harvest of seafood from our pristine waters. Yet for all its romance, the sea is a tough place to make a living and, like all coastal communities, Dumfries and Galloway knows just how steep a price it can exact. The motor vessel Princess Victoria left my hometown of Stranraer—ironically with the motto “Safe harbour”—on 31 January 1953, but it never reached Larne. The more recent losses of the trawler Mhari-L and the scallop dredger Solway Harvester, with all 12 hands, are still raw. Happily, support for our sailors comes from many sources, including the Mission to Seafarers Scotland and the Scottish Nautical Welfare Society, but I want to highlight the charity Combat Stress. As well as reaching out to veterans of the Royal Navy, it also helps with the mental health issues of former members of the merchant navy, which was Britain’s lifeline in wartime, and is very much the same today. As a journalist, I worked closely with the late Colonel Clive Fairweather, who was second in command of 22 SAS and commanding officer of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers. This tough infantryman was clear that Combat Stress’ outreach to the merchant navy was key. He would say: “Worse things do happen at sea”, acknowledging the strain that a life on the ocean waves can exert. We all, in our comfortable lives, owe a debt of gratitude to the men and, increasingly, women who sail the planet’s one great ocean for us all. They are the ones who answer the call of the sea that was captured so well by Masefield: “I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life, To the gull’s way and the whale’s way where the wind’s like a whetted knife”.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Minister does not know who in the Labour party signed off on Lord Alli’s pass to No. 10. It is an important question. Please could he find out and write to me and tell me who?
- Hansard source
Local Elections
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is disappointing that the Minister continues to refer to the Isle of Wight as “the Solent”, which is a body of water where nobody lives. She says that our council elections will take place next year unless there are exceptional or extenuating circumstances. Can she please confirm unequivocally that her plans for a mayor and a local government review are not exceptional or extenuating circumstances that are sufficient for cancelling our elections next May?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
If I may, I would like to express my personal sorrow at the death of Sir John Stanley this week. The House may not know that he was the first person to reach and to comfort the dying Airey Neave, after Neave had been the victim of a bomb from the Irish National Liberation Army, a spin-off of the IRA. Sir John was also a highly effective member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. A couple of weeks ago, I invited the House to join me in supporting our cricketers down under. That was the kiss of death: they instantly lost the first test. So I am now thrilled, and I hope the House will join me in congratulating Joe Root on his majestic hundred in Australia in the present test. Once again, the past seven days have not been a thing of glory for the Government. Not a single measure in the Budget has been scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility as positive for growth, while the OECD and a host of other experts have warned that the Chancellor’s tax rises last week will actually hold growth back. Except for seven Members, every Labour Member voted in favour of keeping the two-child benefit cap in 2024; last week, they voted in exactly the opposite way. Junior doctors will go on strike for the third time this year in the run-up to Christmas. In fairness, though, I should say that there has been one chink of light: the Government have rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill. Yesterday, we were treated to the inglorious sight of the Prime Minister misusing the engagements question once again to make a party political broadcast at Prime Minister’s questions. We do not have a presidential system in this country, thank the Lord, nor do we insist on a rigid uniformity of practice in this House, but if the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement to Parliament, he may do so in the usual way, giving notice to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to the Speaker, and taking questions from colleagues in this House on the policy. I therefore ask the Leader of the House, as our spokesman in the Cabinet, to tell the House what he will do to prevent this practice from recurring. I am also asking Mr Speaker to make it clear in public that this will not be tolerated by the Chair in future. It was reported this week that the Government will be drawing on German start-up companies to fill a supposed drone gap for the British Army. I am sure the whole House will share my view that the UK should seek to offer a welcoming environment for foreign investment, and all the more so after a Budget that has done nothing to support economic growth. I also recognise the value of having leading international companies competitively involved in the testing and development of drones. However, it is a serious concern that there appear to be no plans within the Ministry of Defence to provide strategic leadership, investment and support to start-up drone companies created, led and managed in this country and by British nationals. We have been promised a defence investment plan, but Ministers have been unable to say when this plan will be presented to the House. It looks as though they may be leaving it to the last full week of term, perhaps to avoid a proper measure of parliamentary scrutiny. Experience has repeatedly shown that, in times of crisis, the nation needs to have core capabilities solidly based in UK-owned and led domestic manufacturing. That was one of the lessons of the pandemic. It is hard to imagine a more significant emerging defence need than that of high-quality, high-technology and cost-effective drones. There are superb companies in this country ready to scale, as needed. Last June, the Prime Minister called for what he termed a “national conversation” on defence. He made it clear, rightly, that the defence of the realm was not just a matter for the Ministry of Defence; the whole of our society, as well as the whole of Government, needed to be mobilised into a better understanding of the threat. Since then, that threat has become only more serious. I am delighted that the Prime Minister is in Lossiemouth today to make an announcement, but the sad fact is that he has said precisely nothing to lead that wider national conversation or raise awareness of the threat. Meanwhile, the public are uncertain on the need and rationale for new spending, and key aspects of our defence and security readiness are, if anything, getting worse. May we, at the very least, have a statement next week on what the Government are planning to do to support the UK drones industry in filling that important strategic need?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Cabinet Office has an important role to play in publishing data to enable the public to track the Government’s performance. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it would be helpful to have data on the number of prisoners wrongly released every day by the Justice Secretary?
- Hansard source
Local Elections
This is an utter dog’s breakfast that is entirely of the Government’s making. Will the Minister apologise to Tim Passmore and other mayoral candidates for cancelling the elections next year? When will Norfolk and Suffolk get the £37.4 million investment fund that we were promised if we had a mayor, and not the £3 million—the crumbs—that she has promised today?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past
I am grateful to the Committee for its report and to the hon. Lady for her statement. Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), protections for veterans really mean a lot to those who served in Northern Ireland. It is important to stress that when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced these measures back in September when the House was in recess, he said the protections were specifically for veterans. Subsequently, he admitted in response to my written questions that they were available to all potential participants. Does she agree that we need absolute clarity on whether the protections are unique to veterans or would actually apply to former paramilitaries?
- Hansard source
War in Ukraine
May I begin by congratulating my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate, together with his co-signatories, the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale)? All four are long-standing stalwarts and champions of the great cause of defending Ukraine. I congratulate them not only on securing this debate, but on their timing, enabling us to scrutinise the evolving situation amid a flurry of reports about the peace talks, frozen assets and continued wild rhetoric from Vladimir Putin. When it comes to those talks, we all surely want peace in Ukraine. We all want an end to the fighting and the bloody slaughter of civilians and military personnel at a scale not seen in Europe since world war two. No one wants or deserves that more than the people of Ukraine. When we say that it must be a lasting peace, it is because the long-term security of Ukraine cannot be sacrificed for an illusory short-term cessation of hostilities on unacceptable terms, and certainly not for some kind of transactional economic gain for other nations, least of all Russia. We have constantly stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government, not just in supporting Ukraine as they did in opposition, but in being clear that the only tolerable peace is one secured on terms acceptable to the Government in Kyiv. We stand by that position, in total solidarity with Ukraine, for moral and practical reasons. Morally, this war has a clear and flagrant aggressor—Putin’s Russia—which invaded a free and sovereign democracy. That is contrary to those who have echoed Putin’s own propaganda and blamed NATO for provoking this invasion. We are also clear that this invasion was wholly unprovoked and motivated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex described in his excellent speech as the inherent nature of the Russian regime—its rejection of our democratic values and its desire to restore former glories by abolishing Ukraine’s independence. On the practical side of the argument, supporting Ukraine is self-evidently an act that strengthens our defence, checking Russian expansionism. Indeed, I remain deeply proud of the last Government’s decision to rapidly arm Ukraine from the weeks prior to Russia’s invasion in February 2022, which helped Ukraine’s brave armed forces to avoid an early capitulation that would have left the Russian forces rampant, directly threatening ourselves and the rest of Europe. The devil’s advocate might argue that if, morally, peace is the right way forward, and if we are also applying practical common sense, that speaks to seeking a compromise that may be painful for Ukraine but unavoidable if we are to see an end to the fighting, because surely Russia needs to be satisfied with the terms if there is to be a mutually agreed end to the war. To that, I would make the argument, as I have from the outset, that the most important moral and practical reason that as a nation we should all be cautious in welcoming any kind of uneasy peace deal, is that Russia gaining from its flagrant aggression would send a message that emboldens all our potential strategic adversaries, ultimately making the world less safe for us and all our allies. With Putin unsurprisingly rejecting any compromise and showing the reality of his position by launching another massive drone attack on Ukraine, what exactly can be done? First, despite Putin’s cynicism, it is clearly important that all possible diplomatic efforts are made to support Ukraine, and we would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest developments. Secondly, we welcome the sanctioning of the GRU, which we heard about from the Security Minister, and support using all possible economic tools to pressure the Russian regime. On the issue of economic tools, it has been reported that the European Commission is proposing the use of Russian assets to provide €90 billion to Ukraine in the form of a reparations loan. Further to the question from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who made an excellent speech, can the Minister confirm whether the UK will pursue a similar or different approach? What legal solutions are the Government currently pursuing so that we can move beyond using just the profits from sovereign assets, and will we prioritise mobilising those assets for the immediate war effort? Thirdly, echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and others—we are at war, as he said—and the reminder from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) about Putin’s comments this week about his being ready for war with Europe, we must ask about our own readiness. On the crucial matter of defence spending in the UK, and given the concerns expressed yesterday by no less than Lord Robertson, the author of the strategic defence review, who questioned how seriously the Chancellor takes the need to increase defence spending, I have a specific question for the Minister: in what financial year will UK defence spending start to rise beyond the NATO-declared figure of 2.6% of GDP in 2027? That is a crucial question. I turn to the other points in the many excellent speeches made in our debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about the atrocities in the war. Of course, he reminded us that one of the reasons we stand by Ukraine so strongly is because of the sheer brutality of the war, which was forced, unprovoked, on the people of Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made an excellent point when he said that surely it is in the economic domain that, in the long term, we can exert the greatest pressure on Russia, not least given the economic mismatch at play against the west. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made a brilliant speech. She and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) both compensated for the absence of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who has led an amazing campaign, by reminding us about the terrible Russian war crime of child abduction. I join the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South in welcoming any sanctions that target those involved, which is a very good point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) asked an interesting question, which is entirely hypothetical, as to whether the invasion would have occurred had Ukraine still possessed nuclear weapons, which of course it gave up, in good trust, through the Budapest memorandum. I wonder whether he is aware that in July 2016, during an historic debate on the renewal of the nuclear deterrent, the first intervention on the then new Prime Minister, Theresa May, was from our former colleague Andrew Selous, who asked exactly the same question. He asked it after the annexation of Crimea, and it is a question that we must still ask. It was answered brilliantly today by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who has cared about these matters for a long time, when he reminded us that there was no third world war. There were conflicts elsewhere, but we did not have a repeat because of the deterrents that the two sides had. The conclusion we draw is that we must learn from that ourselves and always continue to invest to our own deterrent, despite the fact that it is extremely expensive. Along those lines, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) asked a very important question about security guarantees. I hope the Minister will respond to that and set out his thinking on the sorts of security guarantees that would be involved if there were to be a lasting peace. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said that he feels that 2026 may be the decisive year of the war, and I am sure he is correct. It is going to be decisive, one way or the other. As such, it is quite clear that we must continue to provide all possible military support and so on. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who was always a very good contributor on these matters from the Liberal Democrats Front Bench, made the very good point that unexploded ordnance poses a threat not just to civilians, but to farming and food production. Many Members made excellent speeches, and it is a real privilege to join them in speaking today. To conclude, I know that, like me, the Minister believes passionately that the UK could be a leader in uncrewed warfare, and one way we can do that is by partnering with Ukrainian companies. As such, it was a real privilege recently to visit the new factory being set up in Suffolk by Ukrspecsystems, a cutting-edge Ukrainian drone company. It is committed to producing such equipment here in the UK and creating jobs in my county of Suffolk. It is a reminder that our two nations’ deepening co-operation covers everything from military capability to acting in concert with allies on the diplomatic front and looking to the future with the 100-year partnership first proposed under our Government. However, the most important aspect of our partnership is our values. We are both democracies facing a shared threat from Putin’s despotism, and it is a shared threat. The Novichok inquiry has today described Putin as “morally responsible” for the death of a British citizen on our home soil as a result of a nerve agent. We also see Putin as unambiguously morally responsible for all the suffering he has inflicted, without provocation, on the people of Ukraine. As I say, it is a shared threat. We support the Government in seeking a lasting peace acceptable to the Ukrainians, and I hope that the shared message of cross-party support for Ukraine sent from this Chamber today will provide some comfort to its people amid the horrors of war.
- Hansard source
Proposed Chinese Embassy
13. Whether the Prime Minister has had discussions with the Chinese Government on the proposed Chinese embassy.
- Hansard source
Proposed Chinese Embassy
On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) raised with the Foreign Secretary concerns expressed by the United States, Dutch, Swiss and Swedish Governments regarding the reported presence of data cables running beneath Royal Mint Court. I note that the Cabinet Office has since denied the reports to the press. Will the Minister now provide the clarity that his colleague at the Foreign Office could not, and give a clear yes or no answer to this House as to whether any such cables run beneath or in the vicinity of the site?
- Hansard source
Local Elections
To describe this situation as a “dog’s dinner” is offensive to the makers of Pedigree Chum. The deferral of the elections in Hampshire will delay major strategic infrastructure planning, such as the Wrecclesham bypass in my constituency, and deprive the people of Hampshire of an excellent mayor in Donna Jones. Most importantly, though, it is an affront to democracy. As the Minister will know, my seat is a cross-border Hampshire and Surrey seat, so I have three questions for her. First, will the unitary authority elections in Surrey go ahead as planned next year? Secondly, will the Hampshire unitary authority elections also go ahead rapidly? Finally, will we get a mayor for Surrey?
- Hansard source
Seafarers’ Welfare
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As an island nation, Britain has always been reliant on our sailors, as other Members have said. For centuries, we have depended on them to protect our nation, to transport goods around the world and to deliver the products of our national endeavours across the seas to other countries. The continued significance of maritime trade to our economy cannot be overstated. Of all international freight traded with the United Kingdom, around 85% by weight and 55% by value is moved by sea. Our seafarers also play a vital role in connecting communities across the United Kingdom, whether that is in our Scottish islands or the Isle of Wight, where my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) has introduced proposals around fares on ferries, demonstrating that those services remain essential to our national fabric. Even for those of us representing constituencies that could not be further away from the sea—Mid Buckinghamshire proudly holds the title of the second-most landlocked constituency in the country—the importance of the maritime sector to the UK’s past, present and future prosperity is abundantly clear. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. It is right that we recognise the work of the estimated 23,700 UK seafarers active at sea, according to data from 2024, whose skill and dedication power this indispensable industry. Understandably, the debate has referenced the actions of P&O Ferries in 2022. For all who observed that situation, the conclusion was unmistakeable: P&O’s decision was wrong. That is why the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, condemned it in the strongest possible terms. Indeed, during my time on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament, we heard very detailed evidence—often difficult to listen to—about the scandalous and wholly inappropriate behaviour of P&O. As the Minister will know from his briefings, the last Government acted swiftly in response. It is worth briefly reflecting on those steps, as they represented meaningful progress in protecting seafarers’ rights and, therefore, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, their welfare. First, the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 ensures that those working on ships that provide a regular international service from the United Kingdom are paid at least the equivalent of the national minimum wage while operating in UK waters. This reduces the incentive for operators to employ overseas labour on worse terms and conditions—although I heard the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and the discrimination that he highlighted, which is still a wrong to be righted.
- Hansard source
Seafarers’ Welfare
The point of my comments on the actions of the previous Government is not to say that they were wholly conclusive and the end of the matter. But I believe the steps that were taken by the previous Government did demonstrate a step forward, as I think the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged in the debate—perhaps not the entire length of step that he would have preferred.
- Hansard source
Seafarers’ Welfare
I heard the reference that the right hon. Gentleman just made. Secondly, the last Government introduced a statutory code of practice on fire and rehire that was intended to ensure that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. Importantly, it included powers for employment tribunals to increase compensation by 25% where an employer unreasonably fails to comply. Thirdly, the start of the seafarers’ charter was launched, with operators including Brittany Ferries, Condor Ferries, DFDS, Stena Line and, at the time, even P&O was committing to work towards meeting the requirements of that charter. The charter placed seafarers at its heart, from ensuring they are paid equivalent to the national minimum wage throughout their engagement, to establishing two weeks on, two weeks off tour of duty baselines on high-intensity routes, and providing appropriate training and development opportunities. Crucially, the charter also committed to providing social security benefits, such as sickness benefits, family benefits and medical care, and adopting roster patterns that properly account for fatigue, mental health and safety. That demonstrated a clear commitment to ensuring that seafarers’ welfare is not an afterthought but a priority. The framework further made it clear that, where provisions differed from those mandated in the maritime labour convention 2006 or any other standard, the higher standard would apply. I acknowledge that progress. Many Members rightly believe that more remains to be done. It is therefore appropriate to turn to the measures set out in the Employment Rights Bill that returns to the House of Commons next Monday. Some hon. Members will know that I had the good fortune to sit through the 21 Committee sittings on that Bill as a shadow Business and Trade Minister, speaking for the Opposition on its many and varied proposals. During that process, we saw the ever-expanding scope of Government intervention illustrated vividly, with the Bill growing from an initial 149 pages when first introduced to 320 pages the last time it left the House of Lords. Some Members may ask why that matters. As I said on Report, although the Bill contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have struggled to get the balance right between the rights of employees and the needs of the employers who create the jobs in the first place. When it came to provisions relating specifically to seafarers, such as changing collective redundancy notification requirements for ship crews, the Opposition did not oppose them. Indeed, I explicitly recognised their relevance in preventing the sort of unacceptable conduct we have seen in the past. However, we also flagged concerns. For example, the Bill grants the Secretary of State broad powers to detain a ship without clearly defining how long the detention could last. That is a perfect illustration of the need for balance. We must uphold the highest standards of seafarer protection while avoiding measures that may deter responsible businesses from operating in the United Kingdom. That links to a broader point recently emphasised by my party. One of the most important ways to protect workers’ rights is to ensure that people remain in work. We can and should tackle fire-and-rehire practices, but if we overburden the economy with excessive taxation and growth-suppressing regulation, the outcome will be the worst of all worlds—fewer jobs and weaker protections. With UK unemployment having risen by 0.9 percentage points since the election and reached an estimated 5% by September 2025, we cannot ignore the reality that the welfare of workers, including seafarers, depends on the Government restoring economic stability. We owe it to seafarers to create an economy in which their livelihoods are secure and not vulnerable to the Chancellor’s mismanagement. Ultimately, I welcome all sensible and proportionate measures that prevent scandalous behaviour and advance the welfare of seafarers, because our maritime workers deserve nothing less.
- Hansard source
Local Elections
This development is cynical and scandalous, and completely ignores the democratic rights of the people of Essex and beyond. This Labour Government are botching and rushing local government reorganisation for their own political ends. Given their cancelling of local elections this year, and now their cancelling of mayoral elections in Greater Essex and beyond, when will this Labour Government admit that they are treating voters with contempt, and that what they are doing is flying in the face of local democracy?
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 2, clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert— “(10) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director for Public Prosecutions.” This amendment requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger. As we all know, clause 11 creates the new offence of misleading the public, which is intended, quite rightly, to capture the most serious and culpable instances where public officials knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information to the public. The motivations behind the clause are entirely understandable. In the past, we have seen, through scandals and tragedies, how deeply harmful it can be when institutions withhold the truth or put out statements that they know to be false. However, there is no doubt that, as the Minister herself said earlier, this is a new area of the law. She referred to the fact that politicians often debate what does or does not count as misleading information. Members of the Committee grumbled when I raised this issue at our first sitting, using the live example of what we have been going through in the last couple of weeks, but we have also heard how contentious legislating in this area can be in relation to the media and the role they play. This is a novel area and one that we have to tread carefully in, recognising that we are not able to anticipate fully how this offence will be used, not just by current prosecuting authorities but by different actors under a different regime, or by private citizens. We also know that there have been attempts to prosecute individual politicians for offences of misleading people, so this is very much a live issue. With an offence of this seriousness that is framed in this way, we must ensure that it is applied proportionately, fairly and with great care. That is the purpose of the amendment; it is to ensure that no prosecution under the clause can be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Although clause 11 sets out a structured test for what counts as being “seriously improper”, and the explanatory notes make it clear that the offence is intended to target only the most egregious conduct, the reality is that the clause interfaces with the political environment in a way that few other offences do. “Misleading the public” is a phrase that, regrettably, is used daily in our political discourse. Accusations of “misleading the public”, made fairly or unfairly, are frequently levelled in debates, campaigns and correspondence. Therefore, we need to be absolutely certain that this new criminal offence cannot become a vehicle for politically motivated complaints, vexatious charges, over-zealous private prosecutions, or attempts to use the criminal law to litigate policy disagreements. Requiring the personal consent of the DPP is a well-established constitutional safeguard in precisely this kind of context. It would ensure that decisions to prosecute are taken objectively, independently and at the highest level. It is not only political actors that we must consider. Senior public officials, regulators, police chiefs, NHS managers or anyone else in a position of public authority might find themselves being accused of misleading the public in complex and fast-moving situations. Often, such situations involve imperfect information, operational pressures or competing obligations. The clause rightly makes it clear that accidental or inadvertent misleading of the public should not be criminalised. However, we must ensure that establishing the threshold for a prosecution remains firmly under the control of the independent prosecuting authority, and not subject to either the ebb and flow of public anger or the risk of tactical litigation. Some may reasonably argue that the CPS would in practice be involved by discontinuing prosecutions and bringing them under the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that in itself could create a storm for an individual subject to that action. That is why we think a tighter safeguard should be required. It is not in the amendment, but I would like to ask the Minister about what thought has been given to whether prosecution should be subject to the Attorney General’s permission. Forgive me: I do not know if that is already part of the legislation; I do not think it is, but the Minister will know. For example, when it comes to public order offences—another potentially contentious area—we ask the Attorney General to give permission for prosecution to serve as a safeguard against the inappropriate use of measures. My final, more general point about clause 11, which we touched on earlier, is about the maximum sentence of two years. What are the Minister’s thoughts on whether there have been any common law versions of a prosecution for this sort of thing in which someone was given a sentence of more than two years? Are the Government sure that this is not unnecessarily constrained compared with the current common law position, which is unlimited? I appreciate that the offences in question are normally more to do with misconduct rather than misleading, but it would still be helpful to get that reassurance.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
I thank the Minister for explaining the clause to us. She has provided the reassurance that we are looking for, and I look forward to receiving further material in writing. I recognise that the Government are attempting to craft an offence that has a high threshold and does not interfere with the wide range of situations that people might seek to apply it to, but I worry that we might end up seeing such questions tested in the courts repeatedly before there is a settled view on what they translate into in reality. I am not sure that it will be as simple as we might think in reality. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 Offences under Part 2: related provision
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Despite not relating directly to the Bill, the matter of pensions has come up in Committee a couple of times. We do need to explore that, because there are many situations where people walk off into the sunset. It seems to me that the one lever we still have over people is their pensions. Have the Government considered how such a provision might be used in the future? The Opposition will be looking at it.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
I want to make some brief points. I welcome the maximum sentences, which are clearer and in a more natural range, and there is not the uncertainty that I think we still have with the misleading the public offence. I want to ask the Minister about the role of MPs, however, because she will know that our privilege to speak in the Chamber, including to make allegations of defamation, is unfettered. We can say things that do damage people’s reputations and that cause all sorts of issues, but we are immune from civil procedure. I am not sure how the common law has dealt with equivalent sorts of scenarios, but I can imagine an MP trashing the reputation of a business and that business going under, causing huge harm to an individual who then feels as though they should be able to have a say through this route. I think we all agree that, although it can be abused, that privilege is really important to the operation of our democracy. Even if not now—the Minister may not have considered this before—it would be helpful to have a written note on the Department’s view about the potential misuse of that privilege to say whatever we want in Parliament, without restriction.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
This is one area of the Bill where we need some clarity about how exactly it will operate. Before becoming an MP, I worked for a patient advocacy organisation, so I saw at first hand just how challenging inquests can be for patients’ relatives. I spoke to so many families who had to sit and watch while a portrayal of events, which they had no ability to challenge, was given at an inquest. I am sure that many Members have dealt with individuals who have had an experience with a coroner, outside of the big national scandals, that was not as they would want it to be. There is an underlying challenge that coroners are very different from other public bodies, agencies and office holders, because to some extent they can just do their own thing. That makes it very hard to achieve a consistent approach. I have a number of questions. First, who exactly will decide whether the public authority’s costs are reasonable? The chief coroner was very clear that she felt that coroners were not equipped to do that, and even if they were, it would take time and resources. We all need to understand what the process will be. Importantly, will there be a mechanism for someone to challenge that? If the coroner is not personally engaged with everything that this Government are trying to do with the Bill—as we are sympathetic to—and they do not make any reasonable attempt to control a public body’s costs in line with what we are asking of them, what is the route for challenge? I have heard concerns from people who work on the frontline of a public body. Sometimes, the reputation of the organisation is defended, but conversely, the reputation of an individual can be at risk in these sorts of situations—I go back to my experience in healthcare. We would not want a perverse scenario where the organisation throws an individual under the bus and makes no particular effort to ensure that their role is adequately explained and defended—accepting that we do not necessarily agree technically that it would be defending, but rather inquisitorial. Complex family arrangements were raised in the evidence sessions. How exactly does it work if the parents are divorced? The Minister touched on that towards the end of her speech, and mentioned that another family member must not have applied for funding. Again, would there be a limit? Could every single individual family member get help? How would that be determined? The question that politicians always have to come back to is that of funding. Is this new funding that has been allocated to the Ministry of Justice outside of its existing budget, for what we imagine would be a significant increase in legal aid spending? Will the Minister reassure those people who have an interest in other areas of legal aid spending that they will not be reduced as a result of this new area of legal aid spending? I just want to understand where the money has come from.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
I thank the Minister for clarifying that, but it still leaves the question whether additional money has been allocated to the individual areas of Government spending.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
I asked how a coroner would be challenged if they were not adequately policing this. In practice, if a public authority is not doing this in the way that we would want it to, how does the Minister envisage that it will be held to account and costs driven down?
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
But that is kind of circular, because it takes us back to the coroners. Are the coroners in a position to do that? It is not something they have to do at the minute. As we heard in evidence, judges do that—it is part and parcel of their work—but it is not part of what coroners do. What are we doing in terms of support, information and guidance, and then monitoring that they actually do it?
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
I rise to speak in support of some of the sentiment and principle of the new clause, particularly subsection (1)(a) on understanding the impact of the provisions. As discussed, some of this is very novel and we will not always be sure how it pans out. I am not necessarily convinced that “within 12 months” is the right timescale. Thankfully, these things do not happen that often, in the scheme of things, and I am not sure that 12 months is quite enough time to see whether the new system has bedded in, and for there to be examples that we can review. I do not support the timetable, then, but it is important that the Government have a clear strategy for assessing and understanding how everything works in practice.
- Hansard source
Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing a debate on a subject that I know is important to him, to many of our constituents and to the whole House. The brain is so important. It is responsible for moving and thinking, homeostasis, consciousness, our senses and how we interpret the world—essentially, it makes us the people that we are. Acquired brain injuries are therefore an important issue. As other hon. Members have said, acquired brain injuries are the leading cause of death and disability in those aged between one and 40. Every 90 seconds, someone somewhere in this country—over 330,000 people per year—is admitted to hospital with acquired brain injury. They can have difficulties with walking, with talking, with moving, with thinking skills, with tiredness and fatigue, and with changes in personality. People can have one large brain injury with devastating effects, but they can also have multiple, small, almost unnoticed brain injuries, the cumulative effect of which can be quite severe, and the long-term effects of which can lead to dementia. The previous Government began work on an acquired brain injury plan and made a public call for evidence in 2022. Unfortunately, that work was interrupted somewhat by the general election. It has been picked up by the current Government, who say they will publish such a plan; it is nearly the end of the year, and I hope they are not going to break that promise, and add to the list of the many other plans that they have delayed. Will the Minister tell us when the plan is going to be published? When it is published, will it include the evidence given in response to the 2022 public call for evidence by so many stakeholders, charities and other relevant organisations? What should that plan contain? I will look at it from the perspective of this Government, who are looking for the three shifts in healthcare. First, they want to move toward prevention. It seems sensible to prevent brain injury in the first place, if we can, and we know some things that we can do. When I was a teenager, horse-riding and skiing were usually done without helmets; that would be very unusual now. We have not been so successful with cycling: people know that wearing a helmet is wise, to prevent brain injury, but if we looked outside into Parliament Square, we would see lots of cyclists, many of whom are not wearing a helmet that could protect them from brain injury. What are the Government doing to make people more aware of ways that they can protect themselves from brain injury? Concussion management guidance for those taking part in elite, amateur and school sport is important, as others have said today. Stroke is a form of acquired brain injury and I spoke to representatives of the Stroke Association earlier this term. They talked about two things that can help to prevent or limit brain injury from stroke: first, blood pressure checks and identifying previously undiagnosed hypertension, and secondly, mechanical thrombectomy, which limits the injury that occurs. The previous Government rolled out blood pressure checks to thousands of pharmacies across the country. Will the Minister update us on what further steps have been taken to identify undiagnosed hypertension since she came into office? The previous Government also began to roll out mechanical thrombectomy. I understand that this Government intend to ensure that a universal service for that technique is available by Easter next year. Essentially, mechanical thrombectomy is when an interventional neuroradiologist takes a wire into the vessels, floats it up into the brain and mechanically removes a clot. It is particularly helpful for people who have had a large stroke where the damage is not yet complete in the brain. Damage can be limited significantly by the use of that very clever procedure. Earlier this week, I was kindly invited to visit the mechanical thrombectomy service in Romford and see the work done there. I was told about the delay that can occur due to inter-hospital transfer. The Minister, in response to written parliamentary questions, has talked about what constitutes a universal service: it is being able to access a service within four hours. One limit to that ability, as I understand it, is that when someone who has had a stroke attends a hospital that does not offer a mechanical thrombectomy service, the time it takes to transfer them to a hospital that does, after acceptance for the process, affects people’s ability to have that lifesaving in some cases, and certainly disability-saving, treatment. When I was a junior doctor, I was lucky enough to care for people taking part in the total body hypothermia for neonatal encephalopathy trial—the TOBY trial. Essentially, we took babies who had suffered a brain injury around the time of birth and cooled their whole body to reduce the brain injury that they suffered. That was very effective, and became standard practice. What is the Minister doing to help people who want to do research into other ways of reducing brain injury? How is she helping with research, and what is she doing to sponsor it? What work is the Minister doing with the social care teams at the Department for Education? One of the sad things that I have seen during my time as a consultant paediatrician is children with inflicted injury—particularly babies. In many cases their injuries should have been preventable because those families were known to social care before the injury occurred. What is being done to protect those extremely vulnerable children? There are other causes of acquired brain injury too. Could the Minister talk about what she thinks the most important causes are and what she and the Government are doing to reduce their incidence? The other shift that the Government want is from hospital into the community. I was lucky to meet Headway Lincolnshire this week, which told me that there were only 12 in-patient beds available for acute brain injury rehab across Lincolnshire. That is not sufficient. When the charity provides counselling services, it has to do so online from outside the county because there is no one available in the county to provide them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that there is good neuro-rehab across the country, including in rural areas? Also, what is the Minister doing to make sure that rehab is long term? Neuro-recovery takes a long time. It is not just a case of a couple of appointments on leaving hospital; it needs to be over a more sustained period. For people suffering complex injury, there are many professionals involved. Some people will have a physio, an occupational therapist, a speech and language therapist, nurses, doctors, carers and many others. NICE’s new neuro-rehab guidelines, published in October, talk about how it is difficult for patients to negotiate that, and they recommend a single point of contact. Does the Minister plan to ensure that that NICE recommendation is delivered? If so, how and when? I would like to pay particular tribute to a young lady I met recently who is one of my constituents. She experienced a traumatic brain injury as a child, but with her determination, great family and community support and rehab, she has made a good recovery and is training as a nurse so that she can help others who suffer as she has. She is an incredibly impressive young woman. She highlighted to me the need for better rehab and school support. I urge the Minister to ensure that they are delivered. The final shift that the Minister has talked about is from analogue to digital. Digital offers us huge capacity in rehabilitation from acquired brain injury. I talked to a gentleman who had had a stroke and was admitted to a rehab unit where he got involved in Wii Fit—a Nintendo game from some time ago. He was using it along with another person who was recovering from a stroke at the same time, and they became very competitive at these balance and movement games. That really helped them to recover. What is being done to make rehab more fun or competitive? Some of the exercises that people are asked to do can be quite difficult. How can we make them more enjoyable? There are apps available to improve communication, memory and fine motor skills, and virtual reality can help with cognitive rehab. How is the Minister ensuring that those are available to all who would benefit from them? In summary, we need a detailed plan looking at prevention, acute treatment and rehabilitation. I hope it will not be delayed in the same way as all the other Government plans seem to be. I also hope that it will contain a delivery chapter that sets out not just what the Government want to do, but how they want to do it and when they want to do it by. Will the Minister confirm whether the relevant workforce will be included in the plan, or whether we will have to wait for the long-delayed workforce plan? Neuro-rehabilitation is really difficult, but many people show huge courage and determination in their work to rehabilitate. We need to support them in every way that we can.
- Hansard source
Local Elections
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement about the cancellation of local elections scheduled for May 2026.
- Hansard source
Local Elections
You and I both value local democracy, Mr Speaker. Last week, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), the Secretary of State told the House that “the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 5.] The following day, the Minister told the House: “Labour is up for elections… our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly”. She went on to state the reason the Government were resisting the Conservative amendment to ensure that those elections went ahead: “It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 322.] Given that we are all ready for and expecting the elections, having taken this Government at their word, the ambiguity that the Minister has created has caused a huge amount of doubt, significant cost and logistical challenges at a local level in changing the type of elections and the processes for nominating candidates, recruiting electoral canvassers and ensuring that we have the right polling station staff and that they are prepared to arrange that election on schedule. This is a huge waste of public money for elections that we are all ready for. Given the Minister’s previous comments about circumstances in which council elections would be cancelled and the looming deadlines that electoral officers face, when will she make a decision, and what process will she follow in determining whether the planned council elections will go ahead? When will the Government brief the House on the timetable for the elections of mayors, which they made central to their Budget last week? Will she ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to update its Budget forecast, given the massive impact that this dithering and delay will have on the Budget’s clearly set out plans for housing, infrastructure, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and NHS reorganisation?
- Hansard source
Local Elections
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? When the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill was making progress in Committee, the Minister was very clear that elections to local councils would be considered for cancellation on request from the affected local authorities. She has told the House this morning that, in fact, it will be done only in a pandemic or exceptional local circumstances. There is clearly some risk that the House may be inadvertently misled on what the decision-making criteria for that cancellation may be. Can you give me some guidance as to how we can gain the necessary clarity on what the decision-making process for the cancellation of council elections will be?